Rajasthan High Court
Patasi Devi W/O Late Hanman vs Hemchand S/O Narayan on 30 September, 2022
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 201/2022
1. Patasi Devi W/o Late Hanman, Aged About 65 Years, R/o
Ward No. Hal 25 Kua Bhordala Tan Kasba, Udaipurwati
Tehsil, Udaipurwati, Udaipurwati, Distt. Jhunjhunu.
2. Ramlal S/o Late Hanman, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Ward
No. Hal 25 Kua Bhordala Tan Kasba, Udaipurwati Tehsil,
Udaipurwati, Udaipurwati, Distt. Jhunjhunu.
3. Nandlal S/o Late Hanman, Aged About 39 Years, R/o
Ward No. Hal 25 Kua Bhordala Tan Kasba, Udaipurwati
Tehsil, Udaipurwati, Udaipurwati, Distt. Jhunjhunu.
4. Babulal S/o Late Hanman, Aged About 32 Years, R/o
Ward No. Hal 25 Kua Bhordala Tan Kasba, Udaipurwati
Tehsil, Udaipurwati, Udaipurwati, Distt. Jhunjhunu.
----Appellants/Plaintiffs
Versus
1. Hemchand S/o Narayan, R/o Ward No. Hal 25 Kua
Bhordala Tan Kasba, Udaipurwati Tehsil, Udaipurwati,
Udaipurwati, Distt. Jhunjhunu. (Deceased)
1/1. Teeja Devi W/o Hemchand, R/o Ward No. Hal 25 Kua
Bhordala Tan Kasba, Udaipurwati Tehsil, Udaipurwati,
Udaipurwati, Distt. Jhunjhunu.
1/2. Meenu D/o Hemchand, W/o Ashok Kumar, R/o Badi Dhani
Tan Thoi, Tehsil Shri Madhopur, Distt. Sikar.
1/3. Sushila D/o Hemchand, W/o Moolchand, R/o Kua Lal
Wala, Ward No.08, Udaipurwati, Distt. Jhunjhunu.
1/4. Pooja W/o Hemchand, R/o Ward No. Hal 25 Kua Bhordala
Tan Kasba, Udaipurwati Tehsil, Udaipurwati, Udaipurwati,
Distt. Jhunjhunu.
2. Mukhram S/o Narayan, R/o Ward No. Hal 25 Kua Bhordala
Tan Kasba, Udaipurwati Tehsil, Udaipurwati, Udaipurwati,
Distt. Jhunjhunu.
3. Ratanlal S/o Narayan, R/o Ward No. Hal 25 Kua Bhordala
Tan Kasba, Udaipurwati Tehsil, Udaipurwati, Udaipurwati,
Distt. Jhunjhunu.
4. Kishore Kumar S/o Narayan, R/o Ward No. Hal 25 Kua
Bhordala Tan Kasba, Udaipurwati Tehsil, Udaipurwati,
Udaipurwati, Distt. Jhunjhunu.
5. Jagdish Prasad S/o Narayan, R/o Ward No. Hal 25 Kua
Bhordala Tan Kasba, Udaipurwati Tehsil, Udaipurwati,
Udaipurwati, Distt. Jhunjhunu.
6. Bajranglal S/o Mohanlal, R/o Ward No. Hal 25 Kua
Bhordala Tan Kasba, Udaipurwati Tehsil, Udaipurwati,
Udaipurwati, Distt. Jhunjhunu.
7. Omad S/o Mohanlal, R/o Ward No. Hal 25 Kua Bhordala
Tan Kasba, Udaipurwati Tehsil, Udaipurwati, Udaipurwati,
(Downloaded on 01/10/2022 at 09:09:40 PM)
(2 of 4) [CSA-201/2022]
Distt. Jhunjhunu.
8. Sanwarmal S/o Boduram, R/o Ward No. Hal 25 Kua
Bhordala Tan Kasba, Udaipurwati Tehsil, Udaipurwati,
Udaipurwati, Distt. Jhunjhunu.
9. Ganpat S/o Shyolaram, R/o Ward No. Hal 25 Kua
Bhordala Tan Kasba, Udaipurwati Tehsil, Udaipurwati,
Udaipurwati, Distt. Jhunjhunu. (Deceased)
9/1. Smt. Sonadi W/o Late Ganpatram, R/o Ward No. Hal 25
Kua Bhordala Tan Kasba, Udaipurwati Tehsil, Udaipurwati,
Udaipurwati, Distt. Jhunjhunu.
9/2. Dhundaram S/o Late Ganpatram, R/o Ward No. Hal 25
Kua Bhordala Tan Kasba, Udaipurwati Tehsil, Udaipurwati,
Udaipurwati, Distt. Jhunjhunu.
9/3. Mahaveer Prasad S/o Late Ganpatram, R/o Ward No. Hal
25 Kua Bhordala Tan Kasba, Udaipurwati Tehsil,
Udaipurwati, Udaipurwati, Distt. Jhunjhunu.
9/4. Deepchand S/o Late Ganpatram, R/o Ward No. Hal 25
Kua Bhordala Tan Kasba, Udaipurwati Tehsil, Udaipurwati,
Udaipurwati, Distt. Jhunjhunu.
9/5. Smt. Teeja Devi D/o Late Ganpatram, W/o Durgaprasad,
R/o Kunjdawali Tan Chapoli Tehsil Udaipurwati, Distt.
Jhunjhunu.
9/6. Smt. Ramu Devi D/o Late Ganpatram W/o Girdharilal, R/o
Dhani Duawali Bawadi, Gram Paniharwas Tehsil Khandela,
Distt. Sikar.
10. Devaram S/o Hanman, R/o Ward No. Hal 25 Kua Bhordala
Tan Kasba, Udaipurwati Tehsil, Udaipurwati, Udaipurwati,
Distt. Jhunjhunu.
11. District Collector, Jhunjhunu, Through Government Of
Rajasthan.
12. Tehsildar, Tehsil, Udaipurwati, Distt. Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
13. Executive Officer, Nagarpalika, Udaipurwati, District
Jhunjhunu
14. Chairman, Nagarpalika, Udaipurwati, Distt. Jhunjhunu.
----Respondents/Defendants
For Appellant(s) : Ms. Kamlesh Kumari with
Mr. Rohitash Kumar Saini
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Judgment
30/09/2022
1. Appellants-plaintiffs have preferred the second appeal under
section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, assailing the judgment and
(3 of 4) [CSA-201/2022]
decree dated 20.05.2022, passed in Civil Regular Appeal
No.24/2020 (78/2018) by the Court of Additional District Judge
No.2, Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan), affirming the judgment and decree
dated 29.10.2018, passed in Civil Suit No.16/2003 by the Court of
Civil Judge, Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan), whereby
and whereunder appellants-plaintiffs' suit for permanent injunction
has been dismissed.
2. Heard counsel for appellants and perused the impugned
judgments.
3. Having heard counsel for appellants, it appears that both
courts below have concurrently held that appellants claim their
possession over the land of Khasra No.498 situated at
Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhunu, for which plaintiff (PW-1) Nand
Lal himself admits that this land is not recorded in the names of
plaintiffs and their possession, to the extent of 4ft wide over the
way of 14.5ft wide, has been found as encroachment. Having
noticed the encroachment of plaintiffs over the subject land, which
is in the nature of having few tin-shed and kacha construction, the
suit for permanent injunction filed by appellants-plaintiffs, has
been dismissed.
4. Findings recorded by both courts below are based on
appreciation/re-appreciation of evidence. Further, it has also
appeared that the Nagarpalika, Udaipurwati, has also issued
directions to move such construction of plaintiffs.
5. In view of such fact findings/factual matrix, no substantial
question of law arises in the present second appeal. Hence, no
interference is required to be called for in the impugned
judgments.
(4 of 4) [CSA-201/2022]
6. In State of Rajasthan Vs. Shiv Dayal [(2019) 8 SCC
637], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a concurrent finding of
the facts is binding, unless it is pointed out that it was recorded
dehors the pleadings or it was based on no evidence or based on
misreading of the material on record and documents, as has been
held in para 16 thus:
"16. When any concurrent findings of fact is assailed in
second appeal, appellant is entitled to point out that it is
bad in law because it was recorded dehors the pleadings
or it was based on no evidence or it was based on
misreading of material documentary evidence or it was
recorded against any provision of law and lastly, the
decision is one which no judge acting judicially could
reasonably have reached."
7. After discussions made hereinabove, the present second
appeal does not give rise to any substantial question of law and
the same is bereft of merits, hence as a result the same is hereby
dismissed.
8. All other pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed
of.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J
SACHIN/9
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
